Yes or no?
No.
Nope.
Absolutely not.
Hate to say it, but I often draw a negative inference e.g. “overrated” especially if the score is really high, 94+.
That said, they have pretty good articles sometimes, especially on unusual regions, etc.
No
No.
I remember a thread several years ago on the parker boards about WE. How they ‘seemed’ to rate wines from advertisers ‘higher’ than other wines.
No.
It means more than a Wine Spectator score.
Same for me.
I never pay attention to scores from either of them.
no - but it means more than the dude I never heard of who is constantly cited in WTSO e-mails.
(Reminds me of a shop I used to frequent with a buying pair of Ray and Pete. If they liked a wine that didn’t have a good score/shelf-talker citing a score from RMP, they’d give it one citing R&P.)
Means nothing to me…which is exactly the same as any other score from any other critic means to me.
Since I have stopped looking at critics/scores about 3 yrs ago, my enjoyment of wine as a beverage to share over a meal has gone way up. I am no longer basing MY impression of a wine on a preconceived notion of what to expect based on someone else’s meaningless review and score.
Usually if I am seeing a WE score/note here, that generally means avoid, as it means none of the more respected publications had anything good to say about the wine.
No. Least likely to get me to try something new.
To the extent that any score has value, you need to know something about the scorer - his/her preferences, and how they correlate with your own. So, no.
No. Sometimes good articles on food and regions, as stated above…
Same with me.
That would be multiplying by zero.
As to the original question: No.
Absolutely not!
The causation for that correlation runs like this: you get a notice from the WE advertising department that your wine received xx pts; that notice includes a reminder that not every wine review gets published in the magazine; it further notes that if you want to assure publication, you might want to buy an advertising package; and so, producers with good reviews are the most highly motivated to buy the advertising that guarantees that that review sees the light of day. It’s not pretty, but I think it’s worth spelling out because it at least puts the individual reviewer’s integrity in a better light. And I feel like I should make that point because I don’t have anything bad to say about Steve Heimoff. I think his blog is often good. I’ve wondered, however, if his reviews aren’t a victim of his appreciating too broad a range of styles. Laube, Parker, Meadows all have pretty clear style preferences such that you can know what a high score from them will mean to you, for better or worse. I don’t have as clear an idea about Heimoff’s prejudices.